At last, after months of speculation and rehashing, the verdict is in. Yesterday, the ICC found Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir guilty of bowling deliberate no-balls for the gain of a betting syndicate, arranged by then-captain Salman Butt.
The debate will be now be whether those sanctions are too light, too harsh, or have a nature of which Goldilocks would approve.
Pre-verdict, talk of life bans had been flying as thick and fast as bats on a Sydney summer evening. The talk hasn’t led to anything more, but at first glance the punishments still looked comparatively stern.
There are bans of ten years for Butt, seven for Asif, and five for Amir, covering playing, coaching, and training with any organised cricket team at any level.
Those of Butt and Asif, it seemed, would certainly end their playing careers, as they would be 36 and 35 respectively once the bans expired. Amir would have the better chance: he will only be 23 when his ban expires, and most fast bowlers are still developing their game at this stage.
On closer inspection though, it transpires that five years of Butt’s sentence is suspended, as is two years of Asif’s. Effectively this leaves all three players with a five-year ban.
Asif will be 33 in five years, and while it would be hard to maintain one’s skills and fitness over such a long break, it is not be inconceivable (especially in the Twenty20 franchise age) that a player of his ability might not come back at a reasonable level.
Butt will be 31, which according to the Australian selectors is the perfect age for a Test batsman to debut. Perhaps he can serve the four-year residential qualification period in the interim.
While it seems anti-intuitive that any national set-up would re-admit such players after such a long lay-off, it’s in fact far too likely for comfort. Conspiracy theorists who view these players’ accountability as some sort of Anglo-Indian plot are hardly thin on the ground.
In some quarters the guilty three are already acquiring martyr status. Should Pakistan’s board in 2016 have anything like the ego problems of the Ijaz Butt regime, the suspended players may well be picked out of defiance and a misguided attempt to save face.
While a life ban may have been excessive given that the results of matches were not affected, it is blatantly wrong that Butt and Asif should be eligible for international selection again so soon.
A case can be made for Amir based on his youth and inexperience, and he has expressed his desire and intent to return.
Butt, though, was captain of the team and orchestrated the entire shady deal. It is his integrity that has been most utterly destroyed, and it was his place more than anyone to stand firm in the beginning. His punishment should be the fiercest of the lot.
Asif did not have the same power, but was the senior and experienced bowler. Both he and Butt were involved in recruiting Amir, whether by fear or favour. That both will have effectively the same suspension as the younger man is not a just result.
If the sentences were not partially suspended, they would be sound. Both would effectively take the guilty party past playing age. Amir, in turn, should have got ten years with five years suspended. That would have displayed clemency while keeping him on a good behaviour bond for a long time to come.
The crucial point is that the players have throughout this process maintained their innocence, but in the end they have been found guilty. The obvious implication is not only that they’ve lied, but lied repeatedly and calculatedly in the face of even the clearest evidence, in the hope of engineering some escape.
Their statements yesterday only reinforced that image, with any talk of appeals focusing on obtaining lighter sentences, not a different verdict.
“I don’t agree with a ten-year ban and once the rules in the code of conduct are amended, which the head of the tribunal has also requested to be done, I hope the punishment can be reduced,” said Butt.
These aren’t the words of a wrongly convicted man. Given his pre-verdict denials, it seems that Butt has merely been playing the percentages. There is not and has not been any sign of contrition.
Having now accepted that he’s been pinged, he is merely shifting his intent to finding the most favourable outcome. The ICC should do everything it can to prevent any such amelioration.
At least some sort of line has been ruled under the whole mess. The saddest part is the loss of a new-ball duo who had in the months prior to the scandal risen to be considered the best in the world.
In this pair, Pakistan had the ammunition to dominate Test matches and usher in a new era of success. But their tendency to overstep the paint by half a yard gave a new meaning to the term ‘frontline bowlers’.
Butt, meanwhile, also looked like a bright and hopeful candidate, as a young captain leading his team to victory over Australia in his first match in charge. Again, not to be.
The ICC’s punitive measures must have as their aim the avoidance of any repeat of such sadness. The loss of a playing career, rather than a portion of one, would be a far stronger disincentive. In this case, we can only wait and see whether the sentences are a little lacking in heat.
ChrisT
Guest
Geoff, I don’t have the PCB’s wages table to hand and nor do you apparently but I think it’s a fair assumption that Amir was pulling a top wage in Pakistan (where he lives remember) when you factor his age into the equation – and even at this young age I think it’s also a fair assumption that he had a pretty good idea of his future worth (as you rightly point out, a guy feted as the one of the next greats). Greed or stupidity, it doesn’t really matter to me because the bottom line is, no one is bigger than the game. Ban him for life and the message doesn’t get much stronger and we take a step towards saving the sport. Not the only step required I know, but an important one none the less. What’s the price he pays? Well, I know this will sound harsh to some but he’s fit and healthy so he gets a job like the rest of his countrymen and buys his ticket to an honest contest.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
While none of our players have ever fixed matches, the fact that Warne and Mark Waugh sold weather information, shouldn't IMO be forgotten. I recently read an article about India, and it made the comment that gambling is illegal, even though numerous people gamble. As a consequence, it probably isn't surprising that the syndicates have gained control.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Interesting discussion from Sheek, Chris and Amazon up top. I agree that there's too much tendency (in very general terms) for people to make pronouncements about what is happening in other countries and what should be happening in other countries, while at the same time that person has little or no idea about what life in that country is really like. Cultural differences are vast, and it's awfully easy for us to make pronouncements about how terrible someone's behaviour is when really it's born of a society with little resemblance to our own. One's own ethics can't be enforced on everyone else, and attempts at universal moral equivalence are doomed before they begin. The situation for a match-fixer in Pakistan is certainly more complex than it would be in Australia. If our players were tempted, it really would be a case of getting greedy, given the solid living they can already make from the game. Chris is right that international cricketers in Pakistan are doing well compared to the average man on the street, but they're still not rich, even by Pakistani standards. It's only the top-rung, established players who can cash in on endorsements and maybe a T20 stint overseas. Mohammad Amir was on the third-tier PCB wage - I don't recall the figure off the top of my head, but it was an almost insultingly modest one, and this while being feted as the world's next great bowler. I would have liked to have seen longer bans, at least on the two older players. The idea of either of them getting into coaching or cricket administration later in life is a disquieting one.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Amazonfan, an apologist in modern usage is used to describe someone who uses argument to defend a wrong act." A wrong act according to YOU!!! You don't like that I 'defended' these players, so you accuse me of being an apologist. It's a BS term. BTW, this may shock you, but it is perfectly okay for someone to use argument to defend an act you don't like. It's called having a different opinion to you. Anyway, if you had read my post, you would see that I never 'defended' the players. "It’s a perfectly valid word" No, it's not valid at all. The only people who use it are those who can not think of any good arguments. It is no different to calling someone un-Australian. "and i use it in response to your unsubstantiated suggestion that the players were threatened." Unsubstantiated? Right. If you do think it was unsubstantiated, then say so, otherwise stop using an idiotic and lazy term such as apologist. "If you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and whistle dixie when someone uses it, that’s up to you." No, Chris, it's not about sticking my fingers in my ear and whistling dixie (what a silly thing to say); if you use certain words you can not expect to be taken seriously at all. If you call me an apologist, you give up any right to be taken seriously. Just like someone bringing up The Holocaust, the fact that you used the term apologist, and don't get why it is so pathetic, proves that you have no right to expect to be taken seriously and you lose the right to expect me to care what you have to say.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Spot on, Mick. Even if it's proved a player cheated, that's by no means a criminal offence. The British police can only get them if they're found to have defrauded somebody via rigging a bet. And considering that most match-fixing-related gambling goes on through illegal bookies, it'll be tough to find a victim to justify taking anyone to court. Also there's the fact that a conviction in court requires a much more clear set of evidence to prove guilt than an internal investigations board of a sporting body would. Probably most of the News of the World evidence would be inadmissible in court because the secret recordings weren't made under any sort of warrant or legal clearance. Yet the evidence exists, and is publicly available. The ICC would have more chance of acting on that evidence than a court.
ChrisT
Guest
Sheek, I spelled out exactly what i was objecting to in your initial post immediately after it. Amazonfan, an apologist in modern usage is used to describe someone who uses argument to defend a wrong act. It's a perfectly valid word and i use it in response to your unsubstantiated suggestion that the players were threatened. If you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and whistle dixie when someone uses it, that's up to you. However, at least we seem to violently agree the rot goes deeper and so should the remedy.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
No problem, thanks. :D
sheek
Guest
Amazonfan, Very true! And I'm happy for you to speak for me.....
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Sheek, this is off topic; but regarding Robin Hood, who I do admire, but whom else was he to steal from apart from the rich? :P
sheek
Guest
Geez, You can call me lots of things, but an apologist??? Also, your final sentence - "Also like a cancer, keep looking until you're sure you've got it all". Looks suspiciously like exactly what I'm saying - chase the cancer all the way up to the head! Perhaps you should re-read everything & decide exactly what you're objecting to that I said???
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"You both complain sanctioning players is too simplistic and I presume by that you mean the rot goes deeper and so should the remedy?" I can't speak for Sheek, however I was really reacting to your comment that they just got greedy. As for the remedy, I do think that the cricketers should be punished, and they should receive bans, but merely going after cricketers won't have an effect. We can debate how long the bans should be (and I do support bans), but international cricket has got to do more. "However, you still both read like appologists." Chris, I find this to be an interesting discussion, but generally speaking, when I have a discussion with someone who uses the word apologist, I tend not to take anything else they say seriously. Apologist is a nonsence word; all it means is that you don't like that I'm defending something that you're opposed to, so therefore I'm an apologist. In reality, I simply have a different opinion to you. As I said, this is a very interesting discussion, and I want to continue this, but if you don't like that I'm defending the cricketers (which I'm kind of not), say so, just don't bring up the word apologist. "Where is the evidence that any of these cricketers had their families lives threatened (and if it did happen any half baked defence lawyer would be all over it in court and the media) " I don't have any evidence on hand, however it is known that the syndicates who are responsible for much of the matchfixing threaten cricketers and their families. Were these particular cricketers or their families threatened? I don't know. However, would it really be that stunning if they were? Without knowing the details, I wouldn't be surprised if greed hooked them in, but that along with threats of violence prevented them from seeking an out. BTW, after doing a quick google search, I came across one article about an English circketer being threatened: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/95915/england-cricketer-safe-house-betting.html Also this: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=230170 "Like a cancer, nail it where you find it. Also like a cancer, keep looking until you’re sure you’ve got it all." Well, yes, however if you need to get rid of cancer, you can't just tackle the symptoms, you also need to go after the cause. The players are the symptoms; go after them, fine, but also go after the cause which may very well be gambling itself.
ChrisT
Guest
Sheek & Amazon. You both complain sanctioning players is too simplistic and I presume by that you mean the rot goes deeper and so should the remedy? If so, couldn't agree more. However, you still both read like appologists. Where is the evidence that any of these cricketers had their families lives threatened (and if it did happen any half baked defence lawyer would be all over it in court and the media) and what in gods name does social policy of the 1800's have to do with this case? Like a cancer, nail it where you find it. Also like a cancer, keep looking until you're sure you've got it all.
Bingo
Guest
An effective five years ban does not construe a no go mandate should any other player is given the same sort of offer to fix things. Consider a 16 year old player would only be 21 should he decide to earn side money and can come back and play cricket at 21. I would have suggested at least 20 years ban so that there is no chance for the guilty to be able to play again. Also I would suggest a fine of some good value which would discourage them who might think it is worth a try. At least 75% of total match fee and sponsors money they have earned -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
sheek
Guest
And just to belabour the point, you can't expect integrity across the board unless there is also transparency at the highest level - from top down.
Lee
Guest
Exactly. It's not like you can accidentally take money and then carry out an act of match fixing. It's not a spur of the moment act either, you are contacted before the game and have plenty of time to think it through. Obviously, there will be cases with exceptional circumstances(life threatened to do it etc), but if you get found guilty. Then that's it. It brings the game into disrepute, it bring your country into disrepute, hundreds, if not thousands of people would love to be in the situation these cricketers are in(representing your country, pro athlete), they should realise that it is not a right, and if you mess up, you will lose it all.
sheek
Guest
ChrisT, I'm comfortable with my position. You say "nail it where you find it". This is too simplistic. Solves the surface issue, but not the underlying causes. The players might be the sympton, but the system is the malaise. Our forefathers were known as convicts, transported for life for stealing a lousy loaf of bread. But they were victims of an incredibly lopsided & unjust society. With regards to Robin Hood. Okay, he wasn't one person, but perhaps the caricature of several, or many people. And what's wrong with robbing from the rich (especially when they got rich from fleecing the poor) & giving back to the poor.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
It's not as simple as 'they just got greedy.' Greed may have been the hook, but in many cases the bookmakers and gangsters threaten to kill the cricketers and their families, so it's not as simple as you make it out to be. I'm not defending them BTW. I hate this as much as anyone; however if we are going to stop this from happening, we can't just target the cricketers. We also have to target the bookmakers and gamblers, as well as the gambling itself. It will be incredibly difficult, however cricket needs to start making tough decisions.
ChrisT
Guest
Lots of problems with this Sheek. First of all, all three of these cricketers were already part of that 'elitist, protected, privileged hierarchy' you complain about by virtue of the fact they were International cricketers. Pakistan is indeed a very poor country - they on the other hand were anything but as citizens of it. They just got greedy. That's something that crosses every socio economic boundary. You're also on shaky ground picking your heores in Ned Kelly and Robin Hood. Hollywood and folklore is a very poor place to look for role models. Sure there is inequality and corruption everywhere but your piece reads like that's an excuse to let these guys destroy the contest that's at the heart of sport because there are other cheats walking the streets. Nail it where you find it for me.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Edit: I meant to write he isn't his son's father-in-law.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that, however unless Miandad is himself accused of corruption (and I don't believe that he is), then I don't think he should be considered guilty due to association. He isn't his son-in-law, and no matter what one may think of him as a person- and he isn't the most popular of cricketers- I think it is extremely dangerous to presume guilt based on association.